What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

Moses' story: gets pissed off, kills taskmaster for whipping his fellow Hebrew, gets put on trial by his adoptive father, kills his would-be executioners, runs off, kills some shepherds trying to drive Midianite girls away from a well, marries one of said girls, goes back to Egypt, petitions the Pharaoh to LET HIS PEOPLE GOOOOOO, starts a reign of terror across Egypt. Hardly a reluctant leader. More a crazy badass.

And note, his reluctance wasn't "I can't lead." It was "I have poorer speaking abilities than my brother Aaron, and how would I manage to go about leading them?" That is to say, he was using Te - concerned about how he'd go about doing it, the efficient workings of it. So then the mack daddy in the sky goes "move it, bitch, I'll figure it out as I go along."

Confucius's personal stories seem quite . He was a hyperactive goofball prankster when he was young. Similarly, Siddharta Gautama seems ridiculously Ni. Laozi could have been IEI or ILI - the only thing really apparent was Ni. He was no SEI, though.

I do agree on LSI for Rand though.

What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

Moses' story: gets pissed off, kills taskmaster for whipping his fellow Hebrew, gets put on trial by his adoptive father, kills his would-be executioners, runs off, kills some shepherds trying to drive Midianite girls away from a well, marries one of said girls, goes back to Egypt, petitions the Pharaoh to LET HIS PEOPLE GOOOOOO, starts a reign of terror across Egypt. Hardly a reluctant leader. More a crazy badass.

And note, his reluctance wasn't "I can't lead." It was "I have poorer speaking abilities than my brother Aaron, and how would I manage to go about leading them?" That is to say, he was using Te - concerned about how he'd go about doing it, the efficient workings of it. So then the mack daddy in the sky goes "move it, bitch, I'll figure it out as I go along."

Exodus 3:11 - “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?”

My impression is that the whole way he was concerned that he wouldn't be a good leader - his speech impediment was kind of an excuse that he brings up later. He's a scaredy cat - God is pushing him along and telling him what to do the whole way.

Confucius's personal stories seem quite . He was a hyperactive goofball prankster when he was young.

idk, what source is that?

Similarly, Siddharta Gautama seems ridiculously Ni. Laozi could have been IEI or ILI - the only thing really apparent was Ni. He was no SEI, though.

Oops - I was mixing up Laozi with Zhuangzi. I generally see Buddhism and Daoism as philosophies - about balance and harmony. Where is the ?

Exodus 3:11 - “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?”

My impression is that the whole way he was concerned that he wouldn't be a good leader - his speech impediment was kind of an excuse that he brings up later. He's a scaredy cat - God is pushing him along and telling him what to do the whole way.

I don't see any sign that he's afraid - he was certainly not afraid of murdering the taskmaster, or his would-be executioner, or those shepherds. He seems, rather, concerned about how it would work, and God seemed to be hushing him up about it.

idk, what source is that?

Read it somewhere years ago -- can't find it right now. I did find something that points to Si-PoLR though:

Confucius loved learning and teaching. At age fifteen he dedicated himself to study.3 When he was twenty-three, his mother died, and it was after this that he turned his attention to teaching. That same year he divorced his wife of four years in order to free himself for his academic pursuits. Confucius became well known in the province of Lu and acquired a number of loyal followers who traveled with him around the state.

The whole giving up your wife to ZOMGZACCOMPLISHMYGOALSSSSSS sounds excruciatingly xIE. The paragraph itself sounds LIE, but the pranks add up to EIE.

Oops - I was mixing up Laozi with Zhuangzi. I generally see Buddhism and Daoism as philosophies - about balance and harmony. Where is the ?

More than that, they're about removing oneself from the world - about surrendering one's essence to the grand whole (in the case of Buddhism) or wuwei/complete neutrality and non-action (in the case of Taoism), about not caring about earthly sensory pursuits. Si cares about earthly comfort and pleasure in a way inconsistent with ignoring earthly comfort entirely.

What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

I don't see any sign that he's afraid - he was certainly not afraid of murdering the taskmaster, or his would-be executioner, or those shepherds. He seems, rather, concerned about how it would work, and God seemed to be hushing him up about it.

If you're trying to argue that Moses was an impulsive, aggressive person because he murdered some people, I just can't see it; there is no evidence for it. Look at the passage where he murders the taskmaster:

11 One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to where his own people were and watched them at their hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people. 12 Looking this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. 13 The next day he went out and saw two Hebrews fighting. He asked the one in the wrong, “Why are you hitting your fellow Hebrew?” 14 The man said, “Who made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?” Then Moses was afraid and thought, “What I did must have become known.”

He looks around to make sure no one is there. Not to say that this proves much, but it doesn't portray an aggressive, impulsive person. Instead Moses is always careful and tentative, asking God questions all the time.

The whole giving up your wife to ZOMGZACCOMPLISHMYGOALSSSSSS sounds excruciatingly xIE. The paragraph itself sounds LIE, but the pranks add up to EIE.

Idk, that's pretty thin. Confucius' philosophy is all about being polite and cultivating relationships. E.g.,

The Master said, “To rule a country of a thousand chariots, there must be reverent attention to business, and sincerity; economy in expenditure, and love for men; and the employment of the people at the proper seasons.”
The Master said, “A youth, when at home, should be filial, and, abroad, respectful to his elders. He should be earnest and truthful. He should overflow in love to all, and cultivate the friendship of the good. When he has time and opportunity, after the performance of these things, he should employ them in polite studies.”

More than that, they're about removing oneself from the world - about surrendering one's essence to the grand whole (in the case of Buddhism) or wuwei/complete neutrality and non-action (in the case of Taoism), about not caring about earthly sensory pursuits. Si cares about earthly comfort and pleasure in a way inconsistent with ignoring earthly comfort entirely.

This is an interesting point. It seems that in spiritual pursuits one can divide an information element into a gross form and a spiritual form. In Buddhism, earthly sensory pursuits are abandoned *because* they cannot help one to attain balance, harmony, and temperance (think Middle Way). The mere fact that they are discussed so much in Buddhism makes me think that is in fact an integral part of Buddhist philosophy. In a similar way Advaita Vedanta (my own tradition) emphasizes that correct understanding cannot be attained through conventional means like logic and science, but the tradition itself is definitely based on in an essential way.

More than that, they're about removing oneself from the world - about surrendering one's essence to the grand whole (in the case of Buddhism) or wuwei/complete neutrality and non-action (in the case of Taoism), about not caring about earthly sensory pursuits. Si cares about earthly comfort and pleasure in a way inconsistent with ignoring earthly comfort entirely.

Althrough Taoism speaks about being "unconcerned" about earthly comfort and pleasure, ignoring earthly comfort and pleasure is a form of concern about earthly comfort and pleasure. So without concern is to neither concern or be unconcerned and to not have a attachment to things such as this. If there is suffering, persevere, if there is pleasure, enjoy. Or do as you wish. Taoism is not a prescriptive religion, so it has no tenets to speak of and any tenets to speak of.

The sage is supposed to understand the Tao but this is really merely a symbol for the universe and the world around us. Taoism is a irrational Ti/Fe leaning belief system. There are no rules or codes of conduct only one's own sensibilities and perceptions.

Jung was actually very interested in Taoism and his ideas about personality influenced by Tao. He said "Personality is Tao".

This is a very important passage in Taoist philosophy as far as personality because it focuses on people and the kinds of people, it even evaluates them.

Originally Posted by TTJ 38

A truly good man is not aware of his goodness,
And is therefore good.
A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.

A truly good man does nothing,
Yet nothing is left undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done

When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone.
When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done.
When a disciplinarian does something and no one responds,
He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order

Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of the Tao.
It is the beginning of folly.

Therefore the truly great man dwells on what is real
and not what is on the surface,
On the fruit and not the flower,
Therefore accept the one and reject the other.

The problem of the Tao Te Jing is that the text is subject to many-fold interpretations, so really you can read it how you want.

As far as the information elements that the Tao Te Jing directly devalues in this particular translation, it's Ni/Se and Fi/Te but the way it is written, it is subject to many interpretations and of course misconceptions including thinking that being unconcerned about something means ignoring it. Does it really?

If there is a primary concern with Taoism it is about understanding the real, doing what is necessarily, and dealing with a very subjective form of the world.

Wu-wei is about Si as it gets because it is about natural action, rather then inaction.

That says nothing of their values(well maybe in an existentialist way, but not theoretically). When you really feel what the material is saying...being one with nature and just acting in accordance with the forces...That's what it is - balancing the forces of nature. You don't have to be a mystic living in the woods to do that. That ideology can be applied to any practice.

(i)NTFS

An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

That says nothing of their values(well maybe in an existentialist way, but not theoretically). When you really feel what the material is saying...being one with nature and just acting in accordance with the forces...That's what it is - balancing the forces of nature. You don't have to be a mystic living in the woods to do that. That ideology can be applied to any practice.

Taoism is about not having values, not making the distinction between high and low and good and evil. And it does apply to any practice which is why there really is no practice. It's a carefree, live and let live way of being. Just do whatever you feel like.

Taoism is about not having values, not making the distinction between high and low and good and evil. And it does apply to any practice which is why there really is no practice. It's a carefree, live and let live way of being. Just do whatever you feel like.

As a whole the philosophy is irrational and Ti-Fe valuing. There are some irrationals in Gamma and Deltas that can feel a affection for Taoism, but often they will practice something more like Zen then Taoism.

Alpha quadra values are more or less live and let live so it would seem wierd that Alpha would be too "imposing".

What types for (the Biblical) Jesus, Muhammad...Joan of Arc? I had accepted EIE for all three.

It depends on the biographer's point of view, I would think.

It is probably almost impossible to accurately type the cognitive functions of most ancient historical figures since history keeps rewriting itself through the different perspectives of those who record it. It's fun to try though.

so/sp cordial (midrange) - the classic or 'true' so/sp, not likely to be mistaken for either so/sx nor sp/so. the most wide reaching and moderate of the ranges; friendly but not ingratiating, anchored by a larger sense of community but not at the expense of delicate alliances. more verbal than the formal range but less sociable than warmsiders; have a strong sense of fairness and equality, though an academic or careerist bent may come off as elitist. the journalist, the globalist, the egalitarian. obama, bob costas, mike wallace, al gore, hillary clinton, steve nash.

My ideas might change later but I would put both in beta and Ni in the ego for now.

You gotta look at how they for m societies in order to get their types right. Someone like Ayn rand doesn't change society but talks about it while l. Ron Hubbard marketed his product heavily thus making him not a delta